ArticleDigital health
A cross-sectional study of the quality and reliability of renal cell carcinoma-related short videos on Bilibili and TikTok.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence and mortality of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have risen significantly in recent years, attracting considerable public attention. Short-video platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili have become important sources of health information, yet the quality and reliability of RCC-related content on these platforms remain unclear. Methods: On August 31, 2025, we systematically retrieved the top 110 videos related to RCC from both TikTok and Bilibili using the keyword "RCC." Basic video characteristics were extracted, and two validated instruments-the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN)-were employed to evaluate video quality and reliability, respectively. Spearman correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between engagement metrics and quality scores. Results: Of 196 videos included, TikTok content was predominantly from medical professionals (86.0%), while Bilibili had more non-professional uploads (53.13%). TikTok videos demonstrated significantly higher median scores than Bilibili in both GQS (3 [IQR: 2, 4] vs. 2 [IQR: 2, 3], Conclusion: The overall quality and reliability of RCC-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili are suboptimal. Content from medical professionals is more trustworthy, highlighting their essential role in public health education. These findings underscore the need for enhanced content oversight on platforms and critical discernment among viewers when accessing health information online.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.